I mentioned a month or so ago
about a housing construction project in Kent called “The Platform” across from
the public library. I found it praiseworthy that its construction actually
involved a diverse workforce, which apparently was the reason why several
bearded white men were picketing the site for several weeks for “unfair labor
practices.” I had asked one of the construction workers what their complaint
was about, and he just shrugged and said that “we” were taking “their” jobs.
Now that the project is
completed, the question is who can afford to move in. From the outside, it
looks like it ought to be “affordable.” According to the Kent Reporter, it has
174 units, which sounds like it should be “affordable” insofar as the
population density should allow for some reasonable long division. But if you
think that a 435 square foot studio apartment is small, the rent is not: $1019
to start. This is being touted as 40 percent less than what someone would pay
for something in downtown Seattle, but it still well beyond the means of many.
The problem is, this isn’t
downtown Seattle, its Kent. Who can afford to live in it here? "We have
young professionals and retired people” according to property manager Heather
Lagat, who notes such enticements as “There's great dining and a movie theater
across the street," meaning congested Kent Station. Low-income people in
need of affordable housing need not apply. In fact, don’t even bother to think
about it, because you are not the kind of “clientele” the place is priced for
anyways.
One bedroom apartments range from
$1299 to $1565, while two bedroom apartments range from $1699 to $1845. To put
this in perspective, the “official” federal poverty guidelines put $11,670 as
the maximum for a single person, $15,730 for a 2-person household, $19,790 for
a 3-person household, and $23,850 for a 4-person household. Thus the rent for a
very modest studio apartment costs more than a single person at the “official”
poverty level earns gross. The story
is similar for two-person households and above.
In fact, it appears that “The
Platform” is built not for families, but for single people, young couples, and
retired people. While strictly not forbidden, it is clear that it was its
set-up is meant to discourage the presence of children. And not just that, but it’s
for people with fairly sizable incomes—and usually people who don’t do anything
constructive except “speak well” and look suitably “attractive” in a
pallid-faced way.
According to my calculator, even
the lowest priced unit has a yearly rent of $12,228; even for a single person
making double the “official” poverty rate, this is about 75 percent of their
take-home pay. My calculations suggest that a single person would need to earn
at least $32,000 to “comfortably” afford to live in the lowest priced unit.
Overall, I would calculate that the average household income to live on this
property would be at least $42,000 and probably more.
The way that this place is being
“sold” is that it is close to the Kent Station shopping boutique (believe me,
the security guards who roam the place are there for a reason), and the Kent
Station Sounder train link, where there is always a transit deputy acting like
he’s just waiting for an excuse to crack someone’s skull, costing the county
$10 million in a lawsuit. Before I noted that the demographics of the
construction workers was diverse along the whole range of races and
ethnicities; I doubt that any one of them could afford to live in the place they
built—and this was the whole “point” of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment